The Obama administration on Monday threatened to veto a Republican effort to overturn the FCC's new net neutrality rules, just as House GOPers moved one step closer to bringing that repeal to a full-chamber vote.

A Statement of Administration Policy issued late Monday emphasized that the White House “strongly opposes House passage” of the resolution of disapproval, which would roll back rules the FCC enacted in December that require Internet providers to treat all traffic equally.

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

The administration described any Republican attempt to undo the FCC’s work as one that would “undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable and effective policy for keeping the Internet free and open.”

“If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution,” the statement said.

Obama’s veto threat isn’t exactly surprising, given the extent to which the so-called “Tech President” touched on net neutrality along the 2008 campaign trail.

The statement issued Monday is sure to fire up net neutrality supporters — many of whom supported his first bid for the presidency and urged the White House to take a more vocal role in the net neutrality debate.

But even the specter of a veto leading up to Monday had not deterred Republicans from bringing their resolution of disapproval to a floor vote. Late Monday, the House Rules Committee weighed the terms under which it would bring the measure to the floor this week.

Telecom subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) fiercely defended the resolution during the hearing, arguing the FCC’s rules represent a regulatory overreach by the FCC in area where it lacks authority.

He depicted a vote against his bill as tantamount to a vote for the FCC to move forward with regulation of the Internet as a common carrier, a designation that would subject providers to tough rules that already apply to phone companies. The FCC still has a proceeding open that could accomplish as much.

But Rep. Anna Eshoo of California, the top Dem on the telecom panel, called the legislation “hogwash” — saying it’s unlikely to go anywhere after the House votes on it. In particular, Eshoo took issue with Republicans for allegedly attacking government agencies’ ability to enact basic consumer protections.

Walden, though, later appeared flustered by the Democratic criticism — at one point saying that he “understands that the President is good friends with the chairman.”

For its part, the White House said the FCC’s process was highly collaborative, weighing input from consumer groups to top technology companies over the course of many months.

“Notably, the Federal Communications Commission’s rule reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation,” the statement said.

An identical resolution is pending action in the Senate, though industry leaders expect chamber Democrats to scuttle the GOP effort long before it can reach the president’s desk.
This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:34 p.m. on April 4, 2011.

Well now, Isn't that reassuring. I presume the WH will protect internet neutrality the same way they have protected health care insurance. Or energy independence. Or NASA. Utter destruction in the name of protection. I can hardly wait. What's next, jack-booted thugs to enforce net neutrality?

Why would any Republican Internet user vote for any Republican who tries to undermine net neutrality? It's a losing cause except with well-heeled special interests that seek to privatize it and control access to the Internet.

Show mesomeone who believes ISPs should be permitted to set up their own movie streaming or internet based telephone service and discriminate against their competitors, and I will show you a knucklehead.

Net neutrality is the preservation of the internet as an open roadway, where the consumer can choose whatever destination they want. IF you call that censorship, I think you don't understand censorship.

The WH has nothing better to talk about that Net Neutrality, as if it is important to everyone. What is important is resolving the continued deficit problem as the WH sponsored Commissioner reflected on earlier. What do we see though? A WH that cannot tackle "real" problems. You know the commercials that say "priceless"? Think "worthless" in this case.

The WH has nothing better to talk about that Net Neutrality, as if it is important to everyone. What is important is resolving the continued deficit problem as the WH sponsored Commissioner reflected on earlier. What do we see though? A WH that cannot tackle "real" problems. You know the commercials that say "priceless"? Think "worthless" in this case

You're hate for Obama is palpable..... Why don't you quit BSing everyone & just change your party to teatard....lol